Pope Benedict XVI Against Pope John Paul II?
A harmful narrative is starting to gain prominence in certain circles in the Church, the circles inhabited by theological liberals. The pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI is being pitted against that of John Paul II, as if the former is undoing all of the progress of the last 40 years that John Paul II enabled. This is nothing new, of course. Everytime during his papacy that John Paul II did anything concrete to stand up for the Tradition, these very circles blamed the action on Cardinal Ratzinger, to whom they gave the moniker ”der Panzerkardinal.” Ratzinger was seen as a controlling, behind the scenes figure, and JP II as a mere puppet on der Panzerkardinal’s strings.
Given that the Holy Father’s pontificate is focused to a large extent on the restoration and reformation of the Sacred Liturgy, it is understandable that he should elicit these reactions. Nothing is more jarring to the sensibilities of theological progressives than the transcendent symbolism of liturgy that the Pope wishes to have more universally emphasized in the Church. Not even JP II’s Theology of the Body was as discomfitting to them, which reaffirmed the Church’s traditional teachings on sexuality while drawing out their metaphysical implications.
The restoration of the sacred to the Sacred Liturgy, which Benedict had long considered of the utmost importance for the contemporary Church, is the surest path to stirring up rancor and animosity among the theological liberals. Any liturgical signifier that points to Christ as the Head of the Church, the One who ultimately constitutes Sacred Liturgy through His Sacrifice on Golgotha, is an offense to their idolatry of temporality, human passion, and the myth of human progress. Putting a theological liberal in the presence of the sacred is like tossing holy water on a demon. So, with the prospect of having the Sacred Liturgy resacralized, they will throw out charges of anti-Semitism. The more superficial and half-hearted among them will blame the Pope for being unsavvy in the ways of modern media. But underlying it all is a fear and loathing of the sacred.
The narrative which tells of der Panzerkardinal in opposition to the gentle and kindly John Paul II cannot withstand scrutiny. Cardinal Ratzinger was JP II’s most trusted theological adviser. He was kept in charge of the C.D.F. by JP II even though he had long ago wanted to retire from the post. He did not lobby to become Pope. JP II happened to have put him in the perfect position to become pope, but it was not his aspiration. It is not unlikely that John Paul II even foresaw that Cardinal Ratzinger would be his successor. He gladly entrusted, for nearly three decades, the Cardinal with one of the most important positions of pastoral care in the Church.
John Paul II had different pastoral and theological emphases to be sure. But it is a disingenuous exercise in extremis to claim that he and Pope Benedict XVI were intrinsically opposed to one another.
.jpg)
I don’t know that I’d “pit” them against each other, but it’s certainly true that there’s more than different emphases going on here. While John Paul and Benedict were one on dogma and doctrine, I’d say there were substantial differences, if not outright opposition, on matters such as the liturgy, evangelization (cf. Cardinal Ratzinger’s address on the New Evangelization and contrast it with John Paul’s approach, which were entirely less grounded in Church tradition), the status of the Papacy, ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, the doctrine of the Church, etc.
Frankly, the realization of this dichotomy is not limited to the usual suspects, i.e., “progressives,” or “theological liberals.” From what I read, neocon Catholics are every bit as upset with the changes under Pope Benedict, especially with what they see as a trend toward “medievalism,” whether in the liturgy, or in the accoutrements of the Papacy, or in the regularization of the status of the laity. These are not simply differences in emphasis. These are the very people who regard the ecclesiastical tradition as optional and throw-away and a hindrance to the very kind of ecumenism and evangelization that John Paul advocated and practiced. The same goes for the liturgy: as long as it remains strictly Novus ordo, neocon Catholics are OK, but bring in the TLM and there’s a collective gasp or horror. Add the possible reconciliation of the SSPX and I think they are the group that is the most affected by the changes Benedict has brought in. Many of them entered the Church with Vatican II, no matter how “correctly” interpreted, as their only standard and concept of the Catholic Church. Anything prior to that was irrelevant. Now, it’s not irrelevant and this will be a source of great consternation for them, especially if the common understandings of the documents of Vatican II come into play. John Paul II never disturbed the conventional wisdom, but Benedict seems quite disposed to do so.
Comment by Prima — February 27, 2009 @ 12:10 PM
Benedict is accused of being a hard Right reactionary who is “undoing all John Paul II’s progressive reforms.”
For over a quarter century, John Paul II was accused of being a hard Right reactionary who was “undoing all of Paul VI’s progressive reforms.”
For years before that, Paul VI was accused of being a hard Right reactionary who was “undoing all of John XXIII’s progressive reforms.”
In each of these cases, such statements were followed with, “I can’t wait till this old Pope dies and we get a new, younger Pope who will allow married priests, allow women priests, overturn _Humanae Vitae_ and abolish Canon Law.”
Comment by JC — March 26, 2009 @ 10:22 AM